User talk:Baggins
Hi, welcome to Indiana Jones Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Star of the Orient page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Icybro (Talk) 19:56, 20 June 2009 Manual of Style *Indiana Jones Wiki:Manual of Style#In-universe. Just so it saves me editing the pages when it could all be done in one go. Please. ;) Vetinari(Appointment) 22:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC) *I personally prefer the (noncontradictory) ambig/noncanon info better in the biography section for the narrative rather than dumped at the end of the page, but there's no actual policy on it. Vetinari(Appointment) 02:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC) :I was thinking something along the lines of a secondary extra non-canon "biography" extension at the end of the biography section. Not necessarilly all the way at the end of the page. I just feel the huge warnings kinda of detract from the overall flow of biography section as a whole when inserted in the middle of canonical material. 02:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for all your staff of kings help Baggins, Thanks for all of your work related to Staff of Kings. You've been very prolific at filling in a lot of good content, especially as the storylines in the different versions of the game are different. We do have a particular style on the Indiana Jones wiki when we write up articles to maintain a single standard of quality and style. Basically we write content as if we were historians documenting the adventures of Indiana Jones. Here's some of the key tips: * Write from an in-universe perspective - as if gameplay was a story that actually happened. * Use the past tense. I usually start off a section of an article by trying to place it to a date (a year). * Use "Indiana Jones" or "Jones" instead of "Indy". Generally first names are used only when last names aren't known, or to differentiate in cases where there are multiple people with the same last name (like Archie and Suzie). Thanks again, and keep up the good work! Vetinari pointed out the link to a fuller list of how to conform to this wiki's style, so check it out, and if you have questions, feel free to ask! Jawajames 18:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry if I'm getting out OOU in anyway. I'm trying my best to keep it from in universe point of view as best I can. I'd appreciate if other people, have the time can go back through editing it, and cleaning up the work. I've also tried to be complete with the details. It might be too much so fill free to cut it down if so. Some of the details might be helpful for other articles such as "Roman Cisterns", and not necessarily important to the summery. I'll let others decide how much needs to be discussed in each section.Baggins 19:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC) : Again, thanks for all your work. Also, don't forget to drop in things like character, location and artifact template infoboxes and such (basically i just cut and paste them from one entry to a new entry). I'm fine with going through and editing your work, but it takes time away from me creating new entries, so the closer you stick with the style guidelines, the less work it is for me or anyone else. I'm jealous that you have the game in all formats! Jawajames 03:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC) ::You might find the template useful aswell. I've been trimming down your pages when it comes to the number of images on in-universe articles as they'll be better spread out across the actual Staff of Kings page to illustrate the plot summaries etc. and break down the block of text. And maybe the Indiana Jones page when someone expands his involvement. ;) Vetinari(Appointment) 12:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Timeline I am curious as to whether we are not taking the dates in the lost Journal as canon. Dontcallmejunior 17:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Certainly, licensing canon, but like most things, this wiki tries to treat differing accounts from various official licensed sources as equal. Sources do not always agree on specific details, and its not the job of the fans to pick and choose which source to go by. Also from what I understand the timelines printed in various sources, such as World of Indiana Jones, the Children's movie adaptations, Lost Journal, and Ultimate Guide, apparently all contain discrepencies between each other. That is they don't all match up, entirely.Baggins 17:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC) *What Baggins said, until someone from LFL can confirm a date we can only really go by the order of events in the source. As far as the office image, it was deleted because you couldn't actually tell what it was just by looking at the image itself. Just Indy and no other detail. Vetinari(Appointment) 19:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC) No other detail? You did't see the door he was opening in front of him?Baggins 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) *Honestly no. Vetinari(Appointment) 16:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Sometimes too much detail is too much. For articles like California and Tong, there's no real need to dive into the differences in storyline between the 3 versions of Staff of Kings, when all that is really needed is just a sentence or two to sum up the involvement of that entry's namesake into the story. for places like California, the reference to a particular adventure doesn't need to be too long since the more detailed explanation is found in Chinatown. Jawajames 00:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :The main problem was the specific referencces that Indy escaped Magnus Voller on board the cable car, or specific references to details surrounding to Suzy/Suzie Tan's involvement. Those details vary significantly to each other in each version. As do the specific details of what the Tong were doing in each version. Wii/PS2, Indy encounters the Tong up to adventure in the Star of the Orient inside Tan's Office. DS tong are involved as far as Indy reaching the Lao Che Lounge and finding the Star of the Orient. In the PSP the Tong are the only ones involved for his entire adventure in Chinatown. The Magnus and the Germans do not show up until later in Panama. All articles discussing the "events" from the game need to remain as neutral as possible to treat the various versions as equal, and not get so specific to contradict any specific version. All various accounts need to be mentioned equally.Baggins 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC) ::I agree that the shorter summaries need to remain version-neutral and I appreciate you pointing out when I stick too much to the Wii version (since that's all I have). For articles where the entry's namesake has different roles, it is appropriate to differentiate the entry's namesake's involvement in the BTS-Differences section. I'm going to move the gameplay info on Tongs to Hip Chen Tong, since it is more specific to the game, as opposed to Tongs in general, which appear in other sources. Jawajames 03:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC) :::Sounds good.Baggins 03:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Shadis *We just need a ambig template for Shadis stuff since they'll be ambiguously canon, same as Star Wars' RPG material. That will cover it without needing to mention it so much in the behind the scenes. Vetinari(Appointment) 12:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC) *Looks like their issue is that Mr. Chee didn't commit himself to a definite answer. But yeah, basically if it isn't licenced, it's beneath a canon rating. At least that's what I was led to believe. Now the question is if Shadis falls into that. ;) Vetinari(Appointment) 12:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC) **TheRaider.net has discussion about the RPG info here and here if you're interested. Vetinari(Appointment) 12:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC) *I like how your thread on TheForce.net turned up while I was reading those boards. ;) ...Hm, I'd say the wording of the template like that would put it too far in the other direction. We have Category:Unauthorized works for published items that don't have consent but Wrath of Hecate states they had permission which would fall under the ambig tag because there's no word on what level the story is taken into account in the Indycron. I'd imagine it's S canon. Vetinari(Appointment) 15:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC) **Tag it and BTS to explain, I guess. Using what we know, I'd suggest the permission = source and the tag acknowledge we don't know where it fits (which is what it's for anyway). As it stands, it seems like Hecate is ambig, Tomb of Tarases III is unauthorised. Could always ask Mr. Chee about that but I don't think he appreciates StarWars.com's Indycron thread being used/abused as verification for this place. That or he doesn't respond because no-one uses the thread bar us. ;) Vetinari(Appointment) 15:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Ambiguously canon? I realize I'm late to the party, but FWIW: I don't think I like the idea of "ambiguously canon." Lucasfilm always reserves the right to undo anything in the continuity—as I recall, Chee came out and said the old Indy bookends are in "canon limbo" (or something to that effect)—so really, everything now considered canon is "ambiguously canon." My feeling is that if there's verifiable evidence that Lucasfilm sanctioned it ("used with permission" is probably sufficient), and its not explicitly (like self-evidently non-canon (like LEGO Indiana Jones), then it's canon; everything else is non-canon. Just this week, I picked up an issue of Cryptech that contains an story called "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Seth." There's no disclaimer or any such indication that it was sanctioned by Lucasfilm, so I'd argue it's non-canon. --Icybro 13:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC) :Hmm, I think that seems fair way to look at it.Baggins 15:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC) :Yes, but anything that isn't licenced ie fan fiction is beneath a canon rating so it wouldn't even be non-canon. Vetinari(Appointment) 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC) ::True. So we have several degrees, "licensed", articles with LFL's "permission", and articles with "no-permission" (fan fiction). This could be confusing.Baggins 20:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC) ::I guess I don't see the problem here. Licensed non-canon is still non-canon, just like unlicensed non-canon. Neither should affect the in-universe content of our articles, and both are potentially fair game for the "behind the scenes" info. What am I missing? --Icybro 00:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC) :::Basically, one is "official", the other isn't. So Into the Great Unknown will be in the Indycron, Indiana Jones: Biografía won't be, like any other piece written by someone without LFL's permission published or not. Thus beneath even "non-canon", and not even recognised. Vetinari(Appointment) 00:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)